Talk:Right-wing politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

See Also section[edit]

Under the see also section, structural functionalism is listed. The article on structural functionalism directly says: "It is simplistic to equate the perspective directly with political conservatism" and cites a source; following this quote it states conflict theory can be seen as having a left-wing bent. I think either a removal or a further explanation in this article about how functionalism directly relates to right wing politics would be helpful. CalorusRex (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2017

Claim that America leans Centre-Right[edit]

You can not claims that America leans centre right when the polling shows a majority of Americans identify as moderate or liberal. According to Gallup, Democrats are more likely to identify as moderate than Republicans.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104dragon (talkcontribs)

American terminology is somewhat skewed in a way that erases the left almost completely. The USA has two main parties, Democrats (centrist to centre right) and Republicans (centre right to hard right). As that article says, "Conservatives, Moderates Tie". That is a centre-right lean over all. The moderates and liberals you speak of can be anything from centre-left to centre-right depending on what they think those words mean but, most often, "moderate" means centre-right in America. Given that America is the quintessential Capitalist hegemony, with discourse centred on how capitalism should be conducted rather then whether it is desirable in itself, that is a centre-right situation and that Gallup poll shows exactly that. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. By global standards, I would suggest the USA is more to the right than centre right. What Americans think is not really important. Americans make up less than 5% of the world's population. HiLo48 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is subjective to say the you think the moderates and liberals lean centre right without evidence even if I personally agree, therefore it should not be stated as a matter of fact based on the evidence cited in the article, which does not point to that conclusion. This poll is about how people identify, not how other people characterize them. The only way you could point to this conclusion as a matter of fact is if you were to find a poll that placed an ideological score on each person in the poll and found the average score was in centre-right territory 104dragon (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I equate "moderates" as being the "centre", which is why I think calling it a center-right lean is appropriate, based on the polling data given, especially when more people identify as conservative than as liberal. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We discussed the country information before and it was agreed to remove them. In every country, politics can be divided into a left and a right. That doesn't mean that the right in one country has anything in common with the right in another. The term right-wing is defined as opposition to the left, but how strong this opposition must be to be considered right-wing changes depending on context. For example, all major parties in the UK are centrist, the Tories are a center right party, the Tories formed a center-right coalition with the Lib Dems (where the Tories are right and the Lib Dems are centrist.
So in this discussion, all editors are correct. The problem is that it is correct to call the Republicans right wing, center right or centrist depending on context. But without context, the terms are meaningless.
Note that while there are books such as The Left In History and Forging Democracy: The History of the Left in Europe, 1850-2000, there is nothing for the Right. Instead, there are books about the specific ideologies of the Right: liberalism, conservatism, fascism, Christian democracy and sub-groups such as Nazism, neo-liberalism, right-wing populism, etc.
I suggest we re-remove this.
TFD (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Democrats (centrist to centre right)" The main article on centre-right politics lists associated political ideologies: Liberal conservatism, Christian democracy, economic liberalism, neoliberalism, cultural liberalism, and green conservatism. Dimadick (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And of course the main article has no sources for this and is original research. Center right is contextually defined, similar to the expression "fairly tall." Americans tend to be fairly tall. Basketball players tend to be fairly tall. Both statements are correct because what the speaker means by fairly tall is clear from context, although what is fairly tall differs in the two statements. On its own without context the expression is meaningless. I hope that no one decides to create an article "Fairly tall" with separate sections about Americans and basketball players. TFD (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Americans have a tendency to support more left-wing economic ideas[2], but at the same time view themselves as moderate or conservative.104dragon (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

104dragon continues to use these pages as if they were intended for discussion, like Facebook pages. This is an encyclopedia, and publishes referenced material. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a talk page to discuss. The referenced material does not point to the conclusion claimed in the article.104dragon (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Lydia, Saad. "U.S. Political Ideology Steady; Conservatives, Moderates Tie".
  2. ^ Liesman, Steve. "Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college".
As the person who initially typed out the paragraph at issue, I would just like to point out that calling the US in 2019 center right was not my characterization of the data, but rather it was the characterization that the gallup news article used as a reference. Quoting from the article, "[I]n 2019, the ideological balance of the country remained center-right, with 37% of Americans, on average, identifying as conservative during the year, 35% as moderate and 24% as liberal." This is an encyclopedia; we go with what our sources say, generally speaking. We don't make up new non-obvious characterizations of raw data, as that would come dangerously close to WP:OR. While I certainly respect 104dragon for trying to make the article better, the source is clear here: The US in 2019 leaned center right because 37% of Americans self identified as conservative, 35% moderate, and 24% liberal. That's not because I'm saying it; that's because the author of the article was saying it.JMM12345 (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)JMM12345Reply[reply]
First, it's self-identification which is not necessarily what they really are. Second, the conclusions are questionable. Another analyst would say that 37% were center right to far right, 35% were centrist and 24% were left of center. What percentage of self-described conservatives are far right as opposed to center right?
Furthermore, it has little or no relevance to this article. You would have to show that this is a significant observation made in the literature about right-wing politics.
TFD (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would first say that I think that you're correct that self-identification is not necessarily what people really are, however the source cited thinks that it can draw a general conclusion based on that self identification polling data. Furthermore it seems to be a very reasonable conclusion based on the data. If a plurality of a data set consider themselves to be conservative and the second most people consider themselves moderate, with self-identifying liberals trailing way behind the other two groups, I would think that calling the data set center-right would be the obvious conclusion to come to (even if there may be a slight difference between self identifications and reality). Anyway, the way the Wikipedia article currently stands, we have provided the underlying data and the conclusion that the source came to. We have not provided the conclusion that Wikipedia editors think that another source might hypothetically come to. If another analyst actually does characterize the data differently, I would encourage you to cite to the other analyst.
Secondly, I think it is relevant to the article. This portion of the article is specifically about right wing politics in the United States, so a source characterizing how right wing the US is seems to me to be a very relevant. But in any event, if there is a dispute about relevance of this information, that would seem to me to be a different discussion entirely to whether "You can not claims that America leans centre right when the polling shows a majority of Americans identify as moderate or liberal.", which is what 104dragon started this discussion by saying.JMM12345 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)JMM12345Reply[reply]
It is interesting that between the article reporting on 2019[1] and 2021[2] results, the writer dropped the term-center right, although the results barely changed. The writer probably thought better of it after reflection.
The problem here is that you have a source that is obviously reliable for polling but not for determining whether the results mean that the U.S. is majority center right. You would need a source that says something like, "there is a consensus among political scientists that the U.S. is a center-right nation," before we stated it as fact. Also, her first article is ambiguous. Center right can mean either a position between between center and right, the left of the right, the right of the center or a combination of the center and right. It is possible that the writer meant the second. IOW, Americans identify as right or center, if we define right as conservative and center as moderate.
TFD (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't say that changing which group is the plurality is barely changing the percentages (even if the absolute change in values is small) for the purpose of offering analysis of data, and I also wouldn't say that changing the words used to analyze the numbers as those numbers change necessarily the same as reflecting on earlier writing analyzing different numbers and thinking better of it. Especially considering the fact that the 2019 article is still up and seemingly unchanged. Now, If you think that we should add another sentence or two going into the 2021 article, providing more context, I would support that.
Secondly, the words in the article right now is not nearly as strong as stating that the US is a center-right nation. I agree that had I said that, I would probably need some academic papers describing it. I would have been going way beyond my source. That's not what is written though. I merely said in one specific year, the the United States populace leaned center-right based on polling data, and that that was following a trend. Much less strong language, and much more supported by the source at hand. Anyway, if there is a group consisting mostly of centrists and right wing people, I would describe the overall makeup of the group as being center-right, so when you say the article is ambiguous, I'm not sure that the ambiguity, to the extent that there is any, really matters. JMM12345 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)JMM12345Reply[reply]

Regarding Books and Journals[edit]

Hi @Dhtwiki:, I have moved those scholarly/academic books and journals in separate bibliography section. Those scholarly books and journals needs to be mentioned as some of the world's foremost research scholar and academicians including political scientists has highlighted positive and negative aspects of right-wing ideology and how it has impacted our society from west to east. Not only that they also discussed from where the right-wing ideology has grown what are its fault lines. From US to Europe to some Asian countries how these ideology has spread; not only that few of the books describes how these ideology shapes economy of various countries. These are all high class research-oriented books written by academician of high standards unless you go through these books you won't be able know about this ideology. You'll note most of authors have done PhD in political science and have decades of research on various political science subjects. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mariam57: The list is still without discernable order; generates error messages (all relating to having put too many authors in the "author", or equivalent, field); and contains odd typography (e.g. all caps and such an oddity as "{R{\'e}mond", which probably should read Rémond). Although the guideline (see WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY) doesn't quite say so, in my experience it is a place for works used generally for the article or for anchors for short footnotes ('sfn'). Otherwise, such a comprehensive bibliography, after cleanup, might be better placed as a standalone article linked to from here. The interested wikiprojects listed in this page's header might be consulted for best placement of such a list of works as you have here. I haven't reverted, but I'm not happy with the list and reserve my right to remove it, especially if no one else voices support for it. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC) (edited 05:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
@Dhtwiki: Just like you have a right remove them I too have the right to add those research scholarly articles. People have the right know more about this ideology. That's why I have added such high quality books and journals written by academicians from world's leading institutions. Although I have tried to fix certain errors which you mentioned. And I'll try to put those in alphabetical order too. It will take some time. Remember when put such high quality research scholar books and journals it just upgrades the quality of the article. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the sources are cited in the article they will be in the ref section. Sometimes a link to see also can make sense. However a list of sources with no other explanation makes no sense and is structurally not part of Wikipedia article structure and shouldn't be included here. See MOS Lists [3] Springee (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bibliography is more useful if it is selective rather than exhaustive.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guys I have tried to keep it concise as you are aware there are thousands of research scholar books and journals. Only the most notable ones I have added particularly from Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard & Yale. But we need to mention some in bibliography as that would significantly improve the article quality. Books and journals written by academicians or research scholar are of very high standards they've highlighted both positives and negatives aspects of an ideology, its origin and its impact over society. If you guys like to trim some of those books or journals you free do so. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mariam57, please self revert the addition of this content. Your edit has been challenged by MrOllie, Dhtwiki and myself. Rick Norwood has also offered an opinion. You are the only editor who has supported the inclusion. Please self revert and get consensus for the addition. Springee (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi MrOllie, Dhtwiki, Rick Norwood, Dhtwiki Springee Since most of you are not willing to add those books and journals in Bibliography section. Then its better to remove it. Thanks--Mariam57 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a middle ground between listing all of these books and articles and removing all of them, but it would require patience and hard work to list the most important of them in either chronological or alphabetical order. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is just a list of books and articles that have the term right-wing in their titles. Most of them are not directly related to the topic. While Eatwell and O'Sullivan's book, The Nature of the Right would be worth reading for anyone interested in the topic, an article about how liberals and conservatives aligned in British Columbia against the socialists would not be. An article about why this has happened in most Western countries would of course be of value.
Unlike the Left, there is little literature about the right. Eatwell identified five versions of the Right and there is lots about them, just not about them as a whole. It's like countries whose first letter is a B. While there are lot of books about the individual countries, there's very little that treats them as a group.
TFD (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another option is to create a talk page post with the list and some short blurb about why each is significant. The problem with just listing them in the article is articles aren't meant to be just lists of possible sources. In general if a source isn't used in the article we shouldn't put it into a reference type section at the end of the article. Another issue is, even if a book is a very good reference we have to figure out what from that book should be in this article. Does that book challenge/enhance/change perspectives on something already in the article? Anyway, the list removal is not because the sources aren't good (I haven't reviewed them so I can't claim either way). Rather it's because it's a manual of style issue. There is absolutely nothing wrong with putting them in the talk page so editors can use them as suggested resources for making this article better. Springee (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to note here that Conservatism now has a similar list. MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was certainly BOLD of Mariam57 to add that list. Rather than just reverting I'm going to raise the question at MOS talk. Even if some amount of "further reading" is acceptable I think these recent edits have gone overboard. A serious concern with such a list is how do we decide if the books are actually relevant/neutral etc. Springee (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need for stablility[edit]

In the past few days there have been several extensive rewrites and several reverts that have left the article starting out by saying nothing but that the "right" is in opposition to the "left", which is totally uninformative.

I'm going to restore the last stable version, even though there have been some useful citations since then. I'll try to restore what is of value, but the current article is such a mess that I don't see how it can be useful even as a starting point. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that is the definition. Even the only book we have found about the Right says that it can be perceived as a series of reactions to the Left. TFD (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not a definition. It may be the origin of Right-wing politics, but there are many different reactions to the Left, just as there are many different beliefs classified as Leftist. I know a number of people who react to the left by saying that it doesn't go far enough, anarchists for example. To be Right-wing, the reaction must be in a particular direction, and I think that direction is captured in the idea of hierarchy. At least, that is what many sources say. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Rick Norwood just to be clear, would you object to me restoring this edit? [4] Having seven citations for a single statement is unnecessary and just clutters the page - see WP:Citation overkill. GeebaKhap (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The beliefs classified as left focus on trying to increase equality. The increase in equality provokes a reaction from different groups at different times who believe that equality has gone far enough. So when French peasants were given ownership of their farms early in the Revolution, they became part of the Right. They didn't want any more equality. That doesn't necessarily mean they had anything else in common with their former enemies, the ultra-royalists. You might find yourself on the right if the U.S. had an anarchist government. It wouldn't mean that your beliefs had changed, just that you never an anarchist. TFD (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have a reliable source regarding those French peasants? the assertion they joined the "right" alongside the aritocrats does not make sense to me Rjensen (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response to GeebaKhap: A little history. The reason for the seven citations goes back to the edit war over the current definition of Conservative as supporting hierarchy. Some Wikipeida Conservatives objected to this definition, and wanted the definition of conservative to be "Someone in favor of freedom, justice, and the American way." Each time we replaced their definition with the current definition, we added another reference.
Response to The Four Deuces: Your observation about French peasants is astute. See, for example, the song "Les Bourgeois" by Jacques Brel.
Response to Rjensen: There is certainly a tendency for liberals who get their own freedom to suddenly become conservatives. I also recommend to you the Jacques Brel song. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The most obvious example of peasants and aristocrats working together is in the Catholic and Royal armies of 1793. But my point was not that they worked together but that they both opposed the Left. Perhaps a better example would be the bourgeoisie that led the revolution then became part of the Right when socialism emerged. The main center right party in France today (if we exclude Macron's party) is the Republicans, which contains various elements that were considered revolutionary at some point.
Even ostensibly left-wing parties can find themselves on the right. Juan Guaido's party in Venezuela for example is a member of the Socialist International which has supported him.
What I was arguing was that defining the Right as opposition to the left isn't meaningless, unless we define the Left as opposition to the Right. Members of the right can have very different opinions from one another, so there is no other commonality than their mutual opposition to the Left.
TFD (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposition : Putting the Estatesgeneral.jpg image on top of the article.[edit]

As it stands, a specific poster from early 20th-century United Kingdom is a way too specific image to illustrate this subject on top of the article, and it date more than a century after the original use of the term.

5 May 1789 opening of the Estates General of 1789 in Versailles

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BookNotion (talkcontribs) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]